crime

Sweden's sexual offense law could be guide to amending Japan's law

59 Comments
By Toma Mochizuki

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© KYODO

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

59 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

Married couples and deeply intimate partners don't verbally communicate consent each and every time.

They communicate with emotions and a mutual understanding of each other's feelings.

Forcing each couple to verbally say "yes" each and every time is draconian and removes the right of agency and privacy from intimate couples.

We shouldn't make it a crime for people to communicate intimacy only with emotions.

1 ( +13 / -12 )

Wouldn’t a nod be interpreted as a yes?

Let’s see what if anything our government here says.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Keep It Simple Stu. If a man or a woman do not refuse or state NO, or leave the situation then it is NOT a rape.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Burning BushToday 07:34 am JST

Married couples and deeply intimate partners don't verbally communicate consent each and every time.

They communicate with emotions and a mutual understanding of each other's feelings.

Forcing each couple to verbally say "yes" each and every time is draconian and removes the right of agency and privacy from intimate couples.

We shouldn't make it a crime for people to communicate intimacy only with emotions.

No one is making it a crime to communicate intimacy only with emotions. As I pointed out to you in another thread, established couples practice on-going consent that can be assumed since they are so well-attuned to one another. And I think you know that it is highly unlikely that someone's wife of 20 years is suddenly going to press sexual assault charges just because her husband touched her in bed without first asking and getting her verbal consent.

These laws are not aimed at trapping established couples who don't need to practice ongoing verbal consent; they are aimed at stemming sexual assault between people who have not yet achieved the level of intimacy required for non-verbal consent.

Do not purposely conflate the two in order to muddy the issue - they are completely different. A person going on a date for the first time absolutely must get verbal consent before intimately touching their date or else that person is risking their date feeling victimized.

Since asking for consent is so simple and is highly effective at preventing misunderstandings and thus prevents sexual assault and rape, there should be no argument against it. It is for the good of both the man and the woman, so I'm not sure what the squabble is here.

0 ( +8 / -8 )

Good luck.  when it comes to matters of gender and sex and so on I would say Swedish and Japanese culture are still pretty far apart.  As it is the new laws in Japan don't seem to have made a big difference to the general scene around magazines advertising deriheru and soaplands and the general tone of how women are viewed and treated here......

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Sex without consent is a rape -- The 2018 Swedish law is more simple than the conventional one where "the perpetrator must have used force or threatened the" victim to establish an assault as rape. The litigant must yet argue with consent or its absence.

The accused, not required as general principle, of rape must show that there has been consent. This requirement which is is normally dormant, Burming Bush, will be evoked once either partner exhibits symptoms of marital discomfort. Principle always has exception - so does marriage. This way partners even under legal relationship will be able to be prosecuted by the violated who have been too long neglected. Trust me, a lot have been in that hell. 

Watching Korean and other Asian dramas never fails to wonder me how far advanced the neighbors are in sex and other offence: speedy trial (Constitution Art. 37), Miranda-law declaration required on police enforcement officers, rigorous annulment of improperly obtained proof (Art 38 Para2), attorney-at-law presence during interrogation, video recording of interrogation, pertinacious questioning to those into power especially in orphan/handicapped facilities and et al. 

You don't have to argue with the Swedish model, but watch the dramas. They are mind-boggling and can be entertaining or too fast to follow sometimes. You haven't, what a pity! You miss watching the excitement of what 2020 Best Oscar Movie has to offer. The world moves fast - the curmudgeon ambassador Hideaki Ueda illustrated this nation back in 2013- Lose time, lose life.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

sex without explicit consent would be deemed rape.

Read the law.

Sex with emotional consent among lovers becomes rape.

Technically, both parties can be charged with rape if they have sex without verbally asking each other.

Remember a state prosecutor can bring rape charges even in the absence of a plaintiff.

This law is insane, it's the end of emotional connection between two lovers.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

I’m still coming to terms with that father who was acquitted of raping his 19 year old daughter. The reason for his acquittal was because she could have resisted him.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

@girl_in_tokyoToday 09:57 am JST

And I think you know that it is highly unlikely that someone's wife of 20 years is suddenly going to press sexual assault charges just because her husband touched her in bed without first asking and getting her verbal consent.

We can quibble about the probability, but I interpret this to mean you agree that there is a conceivable chance, and that in that case the male would probably be F-ed. Thus, this is a knowingly dangerous formulation.

You need to really justify why this formulation should nevertheless be accepted, even though it disproportionately favors females (OK, males get raped too but not nearly as much as females...) - a knowingly unequal clause.

And before you say that males have been known to escape other formulations ... look, this is the way modern criminal law is set up. All the procedures, all the rigidity in the definitions, mean a certain amount of people who commit objectively bad acts can "slip through" the cracks. This is accepted as a tradeoff for protecting the masses from the worst avarices of State Power or a malicious accuser.

So why should this one be an exception?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Do the hustleToday 10:47 am JSTI’m still coming to terms with that father who was acquitted of raping his 19 year old daughter. The reason for his acquittal was because she could have resisted him.

Incest should NEVER be legal under any circumstances!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

In Sweden it's also illegal to have sex without a condom and without consent. Julian Assange was charged with that before the case was dropped.

Never knew incest in Japan wasn't illegal.

Sex without verbal consent might be rape but there are other ways to let the person know everything is consensual. When a women says no then it means no but yes is not always needed.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@zichi

In Sweden it's also illegal to have sex without a condom

So where do all the little Swedes come from?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I hope they teach this in schools because Japanese women are known to be coy about saying their mind. I remember reading an interview in Vogue I think it was with two foreigners (young western white males of course with it being Japan) and they expressed disbelief that women would say "No no no no" so they'd stop.. then the same women would say "Eh, don't you want me?" It's happened to me too, it's really annoying to be honest.

It's joint responsibility at the end of day, but I can imagine Japanese women (other than gung ho wannabe SJWs) being reluctant or just feeling like it's not necessary. It puts the guy in an awkward position.

Of course legal protection for women (and men) is necessary but just changing the law won't work very well socially without some other work being done. Good luck to anyone not married if this is passed anyway! Japan is not good on cultural change...

1 ( +1 / -0 )

lucabrasi

@zichi

In Sweden it's also illegal to have sex without a condom

So where do all the little Swedes come from?

You omitted the part "without consent"?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Enthusiastic ongoing verbal consent is the only way to positively ensure that consent has been given, and thus protect both people - one from being prosecuted for sexual assault/rape, the other for being sexually assaulted/raped.

It’s patently obvious that the law is not aimed at entrapping long-term partners who practice ongoing assumed consent due to the established intimacy of their relationship. Attempting to muddy the waters by declaring all established couples are in danger of prosecution under this law is nothing short of unreasonable, and is an obvious and rather poorly conceived attempt to muddy the waters.

One should very much care about how their partner feels about intimacy and should want to explicitly know where their boundaries lie so that they don’t accidentally push too far and accidentally violate their partner. I’d hope that most people would practice active, enthusiastic consent for that reason only, and not just because it’s the law.

A person who shows callousness and disregard for their partner’s feelings in their pursuit of sex is someone who doesn’t care if they rape or sexually assault their partner.

The only reason I can see for anyone to squabble over the implementation of this law is because they are afraid that asking for consent might mean they’re prevented in pushing past their partner’s boundaries.

In other words, they’re afraid to ask because their partner might just say “no”. Put simply, they want sex so badly that they don’t care if they have to rape someone to get it.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

It's not necessary for the word "Yes" to be uttered for the sex to be consensual. To legislate that it should be is madness.

On the other hand, if the word "No" is spoken and not listened to, then it's non-consensual.

Simple.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

In other words, they’re afraid to ask because their partner might just say “no”. Put simply, they want sex so badly that they don’t care if they have to rape someone to get it.

You missed my comment above, it's more complicated than that (in Japan). It's not a good idea to just change the law and think that's it.

I hope a large number of Japanese women are asked for their input at least. Right now there are lots of people born overseas pushing their own agenda from the social bubbles they live in

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So should we ask for verbal confirmation prior to having sex? Do we need a signed affidavit or is a video recording sufficient?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

This law would be easily abused by vindictive ex-partners. Even an abusive man can entrap a women by say "We had sex 2 months ago and I asked you for consent but you did not explicitly get my consent, therefore I can have you charged with rape"

Keep in mind that prosecutors are required to follow the letter of the law. So they would have to proceed with rape charges even if they personally feel that rape did not occur.

Forcing people to say yes each and every time is way too far and will breed mistrust and awkwardness.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

girl_in_tokyoToday 11:45 am JST

Enthusiastic ongoing verbal consent is the only way to positively ensure that consent has been given, and thus protect both people - one from being prosecuted for sexual assault/rape, the other for being sexually assaulted/raped.

The latter aside, the former can be solved by having formulations that meet tests for a proper formulation - the violation is actualy substantial AND it can reasonably be proven rather than be reliant on an accusation.

It’s patently obvious that the law is not aimed at entrapping long-term partners who practice ongoing assumed consent due to the established intimacy of their relationship.

It's so obvious that there is nothing written in the proposed amendment to actually guarantee even this little bit, so we are all just waiting for its misuse by a feminist. Great legal draftsmanship, Girl_in_Tokyo!

Further, ALL relationships start with a first time, and even your intention provides no real protection at all. As soon as the woman regrets her sex, and says that she didn't consent, the male's probably F-ed. Great planning!

The only reason I can see for anyone to squabble over the implementation of this law is because they are afraid that asking for consent might mean they’re prevented in pushing past their partner’s boundaries.

I don't have a partner. I'm still objecting as a person who has an interest in law and proper legal formulations. There, your "only reason" claim is defeated.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Meanwhile in Japan it's completely legal to do the horizontal tango with immediate family members, if consensual. Bizarre.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Headline: "Sweden's sexual offense law could be guide to amending Japan's law"

Actual situation: Someone who has nothing to do with the legislation itself thinks lawmakers should look at Sweden's sexual offense law.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Yes consent is essential but if verbal - whether ongoing or not - and only 2 people present seems to me it isn't really going to be easy to prove or disprove.......

1 ( +1 / -0 )

According to whom? the author? I don't see any members of the Japanese government or policy makers quoted.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

...achieved the level of intimacy required for non-verbal consent.

Just curious, GIT, how do you define this level? Do you get a badge when you reach it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Buming Bush

Your are right- I better locate and read the 2018 law. I am equally aware of the danger you raised - because the court records say police here can eavesdrop non-LDP politicians with impunity. More Julian Assanges will be jailed. So will the cronies and Harvey Weinsteins in power keep their rampage as cited here and elsewhere. 

Emotional (consent | connection) (among | "among two ") lovers, however, is where angels fear to tread. More so because you are concerned with liberty and individual dignity. Here "public" prosecutors, preferentially treated/promoted to heaven-like positions on account of political orientation, are free from election and face nearly-zero public rebuke or reprimand- Remember how tempting power and its remuneration are. The current Prime Minister has nonchalantly raised their retirement age to 65: a good reason for them turning a deaf ear to those violated. Court judges have been worse: honest brokers of those in power. I've rarely seen them practice conscience as admonished.  

Just read Art 37 Para 3 in which "at all times" reads as Ikanaru baai - "whatever case," a worst compromise between Imperial magistrates and Potsdam-Declaration executioners. That is more insane due to local lack of freedom fighters if left unattended by the conscientious men like you: children/women should not be kept in a sub-Third world climate. Where did the super ambassador Ueda get irascible? At the UN 50th Committee Against Torture meeting where Japan was a long-standing suspect for crime abolished in England around 1640.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Burning BushToday  11:52 am JST

This law would be easily abused by vindictive ex-partners. Even an abusive man can entrap a women by say "We had sex 2 months ago and I asked you for consent but you did not explicitly get my consent, therefore I can have you charged with rape"

First, this scenario assumes people lie about sexual assault and rape often enough that determining whether a person is lying is an ongoing concern. This isn’t actually the case, since stats indicate that less than 4% of sexual assaults are even reported, with most people saying they were too embarrassed, felt too much shame, and didn’t want to go through the process of reporting as it’s very intense - it involves describing the incident in intimate detail over and over again, and being grilled on the stand by prosecutors. Prosecutors won’t even take the case unless they’re 100% sure of winning - not 100% sure the incident happened, but 100% sure of winning.

In other words, it’s so traumatic for someone to come forward and the process is so arduous that hardly any rapes are even reported, let alone falsely reported.

Secondly, this scenario you paint of vindictive ex-lovers doesn’t describe using the law to entrap someone. If you got consent, then there was no sexual assault - so it comes back to a person lying, which again, is very rare.

In other words, this law can’t be abused. It only sets a standard for what consent should look like, so that it’s completely clear whether or not consent was actually given. It protects people.

Both men and women benefit from having a clear example of what consent should look like.

Forcing people to say yes each and every time is way too far and will breed mistrust and awkwardness.

How can getting consent breed mistrust? If anything, being explicitly asked “is this ok” every step of the way would promote trust, as it would clearly establish that your partner very much cares for your well-being and wants to make sure that you are feeling safe, secure, and that you want them to continue.

And for awkwardness, it might at first felt awkward to talk directly and explicitly about sex, but it’s necessary to have that conversation - just like it’s necessary to tell your partner what you like, what you don’t like, what you want, what turns you on.

We are adults - surely we can get past a bit of awkwardness if it makes our sex lives better and ultimately more fulfilling. Consent is sexy!! Knowing your partner really really wants you to do what you’re doing and is actively enjoying it is hot!!

And that it additionally protects against accidentally violating boundaries and prevents sexual violations, then even better!!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

There should be a block function here.

Why am I continually forced to note that so many replies to me contain rabid misogyny? I can and do skim and ignore, but they kept replying to me regardless.

Why can’t I just block the misogynistic posters so they can’t see me or reply to me, so that I can enjoy the discussion with the other, more reasonable people without having to come across horrible, misogynistic comments?

Why do mods take action against calling out misogyny, but won’t take action against misogyny itself?

The fact that misogyny, sexism, racism, homophobia, and transphobia are all allowed here while those who call it out are censured is extremely telling.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

it involves describing the incident in intimate detail over and over again, and being grilled on the stand by prosecutors.

With the new law, that won't need to happen.

The police will simply ask:

"Did you explicitly ask the person if they wanted to have sex?"

Husband answers "Err... well no, we haven't done that for 10 years"

End of investigation. He's a full blown rapist because he didn't go through the verbal consent process... and technically so is his wife because she probably didn't ask him either, so I guess they both go to jail.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

WobotToday  11:41 am JST

I hope they teach this in schools because Japanese women are known to be coy about saying their mind. I remember reading an interview in Vogue I think it was with two foreigners (young western white males of course with it being Japan) and they expressed disbelief that women would say "No no no no" so they'd stop.. then the same women would say "Eh, don't you want me?" It's happened to me too, it's really annoying to be honest.

FYI, I’m bisexual and have dated Japanese women, so I’m well aware that this happens.

The way I get around it is to keep asking until I get a clear answer.

I don’t know about you, but I personally don’t want to rely on my ability to read minds to make sure I’m not violating someone.

I’ve had a couple of experiences that could have gone really badly if I hadn’t been as careful as I was.

And I’ve yet to regret pushing for a clear “yes”. Girls who act out put that I don’t just power through her “no” scare me, and make me wonder about their level of self-awareness ability to even know what they want.

Again, I don’t know about you, but I’d much much much rather date someone who enthusiastically throws herself at me. ;)

As for women who are actively seeking a Dominant partner? A D/s relationship also requires explicit and ongoing conversations about consent - more so than normal vanilla relationships do. Anyone into that ought to know that - and if they don’t, they should be avoided because that’s actually dangerous.

And personally? I only want to be intimate with adults who are mature enough to talk explicitly about sex, and who have enough self-awareness that they can draw clear boundaries and communicate about them.

Coyness and game playing turn me off completely. I’d rather stay home with my Hitachi Magic Wand. ;)

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Burning BushToday  02:40 pm JST

With the new law, that won't need to happen. 

The police will simply ask:

"Did you explicitly ask the person if they wanted to have sex?"

Husband answers "Err... well no, we haven't done that for 10 years"

End of investigation. He's a full blown rapist because he didn't go through the verbal consent process... and technically so is his wife because she probably didn't ask him either, so I guess they both go to jail.

Sorry, but what??

I really can’t figure out if you really believe this, or if you’re just being purposely obtuse for the sake of continuing an argument.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@girl_in_tokyo Today 02:25 pm JST

How can getting consent breed mistrust?

I don't know about you, GIT, but I think the word "trust" only gains practical meaning when the parties don't feel they have to verify at every step. "Trust but verify" might be famous, but also a oxymoron. Verification builds trust when the verification checks out, but the need for it suggests trust is a Work in Progress.

girl_in_tokyoToday 02:37 pm JST

There should be a block function here.

GIT, you have to learn to not live in an echo chamber.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Burning Bush, the point you make is specifically addressed in the article.

"However, there is no legal definition as to what it means to "participate voluntarily," and it is up to the participants to consider whether their "voluntariness" was expressed in words or actions, senior legal manager at the Swedish Prosecution Authority Hedvic Trost said during a press conference in Tokyo."

1 ( +1 / -0 )

chuckmoToday 03:32 pm JST

It doesn't solve the problem at all, because when the woman starts to complain, there is obviously a difference in this "consideration" as to whether the voluntariness was present or adequately expressed. In that case, seeing there are only two parties in a closed space, in the end the police and court can only decide to believe the male version or the female version, and unless the male is some kind of political hotshot every incentive is with the court to find for the female.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Sweden isn't a Country worth following in regards to these laws, from memory its also Sweden that has laws that make soliciting for sex is illegal, BUT its ok to offer sex for money - another words the buyer gets charged but the seller nothing happens to.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Well done, Chuckmo! A good pix, too, because the verbal lynching, mysteriously unrefereed here, reminded me of the culture Wobot here referred to, "Japan is not good on cultural change." This year's Oscar recipient for Makeup & Hair-styling Kazu Hiro underscored a similar sentiment: I left Japan because I got so tired of this culture so submissive and so hard to make dream come true. This bombshell in reply to Asahi reporter Toshio Ogata attracted on YouTube 130k views and 762 comments as of today since Feb 10.

That is more the reason I laud and extol Shiori san, who had briefly emigrated to UK, and other Joans of Arc who refuse to be silenced by the UN TAC meeting tirade-like pressure targeting a woman alone. Shame on Ueda and his company. Let's hope and help others in need. Otherwise all left will be misogynists, gropers or rapists without any care of civil-law concept, deserted by the sensible like Style-Hero Kazu.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There should be a block function here.

Are you still working with blocks, colors and numbers?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The way I get around it is to keep asking until I get a clear answer.

I don’t know about you, but I personally don’t want to rely on my ability to read minds to make sure I’m not violating someone.

I agree, but I think you'll find the ones that don't like having to respond tend to disappear without saying anything (as I and many other people I know have found out). It's tiring and めんどうくさい but this is Japan, it's how people are. Don't you agree that this would also need to be taught in schools though? Anyway, Japanese women (and men) need to be consulted anyway and there's no point us foreigners going round in circles over it.

Btw, Japan Today doesn't need a block button because it's a place for public debate and platforms like Twitter create filter bubbles. If you have a problem contact the site and I don't think what you are having to put up with is misogyny in that it's not any worse than the level of criticism everyone else gets (I read all comments to check, maybe something was deleted). Just because you are female does not make people disagreeing with you misogyny if they would also think the same if a man said it

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I would also add I split up with my last girlfriend because I thought she wasn't particularly interested in me but she burst into tears saying "But Japanese people don't show what they really think!"

'Because It's Japan' logic but you can't disagree it's widely prevalent

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes on that super ambassador. Am I the only mistake-prone writer who nonetheless tell natives from non-native in English? Long gone are the days of a civil ambiance which men and women alike freely posting pictures could enjoy and tell their minds off without fear of reprisal. I've suffered enough and shut my mouth. Let non-Js have their say. For they have few outlets. Perhaps this way civility returns here to flourish once again.

Much kudos to the J-Today for keeping expats or anybody else and their history alive.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WobotToday 06:11 pm JST

I agree, but I think you'll find the ones that don't like having to respond tend to disappear without saying anything (as I and many other people I know have found out). It's tiring and めんどうくさい but this is Japan, it's how people are. Don't you agree that this would also need to be taught in schools though? Anyway, Japanese women (and men) need to be consulted anyway and there's no point us foreigners going round in circles over it.

Yes, it's very true that reticence and indirect communication are the cultural norm in Japan, and I do think the concept of active and ongoing enthusiastic consent needs to be taught as part of sex education. A lot of people here don't understand it, and don't follow it, though that has been slowly changing as awareness builds via the media because it gets people thinking and talking about it.

Something that men should understand about women saying "no no no" but meaning "yes yes yes" is that some of the women saying "no no no" really do mean NO. I can't tell you how many times I had to get mad at guys and either hit. push, or yell to get them to understand I really did mean to stop, now. Can you imagine how upsetting that was to me? How scary it sometimes was?

Even worse, can you imagine what happens to women who aren't as assertive as I am?

How would a guy feel knowing he had pressured a woman into going way further than she wanted? Pretty bad, I'd hope. Best to head that off at the path, and the best way to do that is to take "no" as the true and final answer.

Btw, Japan Today doesn't need a block button because it's a place for public debate and platforms like Twitter create filter bubbles. If you have a problem contact the site and I don't think what you are having to put up with is misogyny in that it's not any worse than the level of criticism everyone else gets (I read all comments to check, maybe something was deleted). Just because you are female does not make people disagreeing with you misogyny if they would also think the same if a man said it

I must say I disagree. This isn't a simple matter of "you should consider both sides of the issue" when both sides have some merit. This is a matter of the other side being misogyny, homophobia, racism, and transphobia, which means it has no merit whatsoever. It's not criticism of ideas, it's expressing hate for an entire group of people. It's not discussion, it's purposefully insulting and degrading someone as a way to discourage them from posting.

We don't need that here. Using a block button is no different from walking away from a group of people at a bar who begin to spout racist rhetoric, or asking a homophobic person not to talk that way and then leaving when they continue. Why should anyone have to tolerate that for even the second it takes them to skim the post?

Allowing such posts creates a hostile environment so that no one in the demographic being targeted ever wants to post here. Have you not noticed that there are very very few women who post here? No GLBTQIA? Do you wonder why? If you didn't know before, well, you know it now. They just plain don't want to be here.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Sweden's sexual offense law is nothing short of a catastrophe! While I totally get that rape is a serious crime and has to be punished accordingly, Swedish law basically makes any person punishable at any time, since it is basically guilty until proven otherwise...

Just look a bit into Snowdens case...

1 ( +2 / -1 )

They just plain don't want to be here

Maybe they don't want to be here, but the reasons are unclear and it's not good to so confidently inferring the reasons for it without any evidence - maybe there are more? Who knows. There are women who post here, but you're the only person who openly claims to be one.

Even worse, can you imagine what happens to women who aren't as assertive as I am?

I can imagine it's a nightmare, that is why there are already laws against rape. Like I said, it's joint responsibility... men should play by the rules (as should women). I hope it never happens to you, or anyone else. The Japanese police need to reform how they deal with reports of it especially.

This isn't a simple matter of "you should consider both sides of the issue" when both sides have some merit. This is a matter of the other side being misogyny, homophobia, racism, and transphobia, which means it has no merit whatsoever.

It's actually quite interesting for me to talk to people and see other people talking on the internet compared because people (on the left and the right) are very quick to throw a label on something to justify themselves as the higher moral power. You say it's misogyny, I say it's just people disagreeing with you and you just happen to be a woman, so you just repeat it's misogyny without explaining why. You also said a few times that 'people who disagree are just worried she'll say no' when that's not what people were saying and even when you replied to me it was as if I was disagreeing (it was kind of patronising too but I'll let you off) so I had to repeat the question - not everyone is out to get you.

You also say there is racism, homophobia and transphobia and I agree that there may be some, but it depends on how you define it. I think south Koreans get a lot of crap in the news here, but that's aimed at the country itself, and the anti zainichi commenters make some fair points about them acquiring Japanese citizenship to be taken seriously etc and they are technically right on paper, but I always point out that it won't solve the problem with racism in practice (Kawasaki's hate speech law appears to be effective in that regard).

I'm not even going to ask how you define transphobia because I bet it's freedom to self-ID as people please. Often people who advocate for that paint everyone who disagrees as transphobic even when there is legitimate potential for its abuse (e.g. Karen white in the UK and 'Jessica' Yaniv in Canada). You're not going to win people over by just saying the other side is morally degenerate.

I said it is interesting to see people talk on the internet and I should have added I meant people who aren't academics because academics are much better are talking about it calmly, and above all comprehensively. I know many women, and men, who take a much more measured and thorough approach to all these social problems than the people shouting on the internet and it is much easier to discuss things without throwing out a label at the first sign of disagreement. You can't necessarily have everything your own way either. I recently did a study on the effects of a complaint about apparent transphobia on media coverage of self-ID and even though the complaint was not accurate it stopped any interrogation of the potential negative effects of self-ID (self-censorship essentially). We need public discussion and understanding and above all consent (ironic in this context) for it to work - shutting down conversation at the first perceived slight doesn't help.

To be honest I wonder why you are wasting time on a site that you seem to dislike so much. If you really care about changing Japanese culture you should be engaging with Japanese people because us gaijin won't make a difference. Are you even a member of the labour union? That is the single most effective way to ensure women get fair treatment in the workplace, by making use of existing equality law. I regularly put my own job and reputation on the line to ensure my female colleagues get equal pay and fair treatment after maternity leave etc. Also my donations go towards funding lawyers for legal action. I'm only here for the propaganda myself and to be honest I seek out views that are different to my own - if you just live in a bubble you won't know if you're wrong. I understand you don't like it but the difference between feminists now and before is that the block button didn't exist before the internet but they still got more done. I encourage you to do something in the real world because it's more productive

2 ( +3 / -1 )

This law is insane, it's the end of emotional connection between two lovers.

Buddy, if having to get a ‘yes’ is enough to kill the mood, she might not be that into you to begin with. The idea that this will criminalize sex between intimate partners is the most hilariously slippery slope I’ve witnessed in this site. If you and your wife want to have at each other without an explicit “yes”, then you can. As long as your wife doesn’t decide to report to the policy and press charges, you’re in the clear. And I hope you’re not that bad in the sack. In the end, you’re just being some “the sky if falling” doom singer and the rest of the world is just going to tune you out.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Something that men should understand about women saying "no no no" but meaning "yes yes yes" is that some of the women saying "no no no" really do mean NO

So... is the opposite also true!? I, for one, think “no, no, no” always means no, but I learned tonight that it can also mean “yes yes yes”. Now whenever a girl tells me “yes yes yes” I will wonder if she actually means “no no no” and I’m going to end up arrested.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

 Have you not noticed that there are very very few women who post here? No GLBTQIA? Do you wonder why? If you didn't know before, well, you know it now. They just plain don't want to be here.

There are people who were open about their sexuality, which led to taunts and snide remarks from a small but vocal minority.

That would tend to put people off from commenting on certain topics, I imagine.

As for women, it's true that there doesn't appear to be many female posters. Especially on issues like this. I asked a friend of mine (who lurked here in the past) why she never posted. She's highly intelligent and very erudite and I think she would stymie most of the usual misogynists here. She said, simply, "why bother". Her point was that some of the male posters (not all, obvs) are so entrenched in their views that it's a waste of time and energy.

I think that's really sad. I believe that people can change their outlook on all manner of subjects. I know they can, as I witnessed someone who was an out and out racist mellow over the years and eventually completely turned their previous (conditioned) outlook on its head.

Currently, it seems to be that some men are very fearful about women and their rights not to be assaulted.

I'm fearful of them and coming from a very different environment, I guess I just don't understand why they are so angry.

History has had plenty of cultures with matriarchies, it has had strong women leaders and thinkers and doers.

Maybe some with strong views fear a matriarchy and see feminism and "me too" as a gateway to such a situation. If that's the case, how about a compromise - no matriarchy or patriarchy. Instead, a equal society where both men and women (and others) can respect each other.

Where the idea that sex is something to be enjoyed but just because you buy someone a drink etc, doesn't mean sex is on the menu.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Different cultures have differing outlooks, I get that, but is the age of consent really 13 in Japan?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

girl in tokyo:

First, this scenario assumes people lie about sexual assault and rape often enough that determining whether a person is lying is an ongoing concern.

How often is "often enough"? So a couple of innocents being jailed is OK with you as long as it is not "often enough"?

This isn’t actually the case, since stats indicate that less than 4% of sexual assaults are even reported,

Err.... how do you know about all these incidents if they are not reported? Supernatural power?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

How often is "often enough"? So a couple of innocents being jailed is OK with you as long as it is not "often enough"?

I can’t speak for Japan, but according to studies conducted in the US, the percentage of rape/sexual assault accusations that turn out to be untrue is between 2-4%. According to the FBI, the number is about 8%, but that is an older study. So to put it another way, a minimum of 92% of all rape accusations turn out to be true.

I can’t say where you stand personally, WilliB, but there seem to be a large number of people here concerned about the wellbeing of ‘people who might be falsely-imprisoned’ and yet without a shred of self-awareness, support the death penalty, which would mean they are okay with the possible permanent punishment of an innocent person.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@ReynardFoxToday 02:28 am JST

2-8% is quite a lot for a legal system claiming to require "beyond reasonable doubt" to knowingly accept.

And I'll also point out that this percentage is likely to increase. As GIT points out, there is significant stigma to a rape accusation for the accuser. Though it sucks for the genuine victim, at least it is a significant deterrent or disincentive against making up a story. However, the trend (and this is one desired by feminists by GIT) is to get rid of this stigma and to shove it all on the perpetrator.

Which in a deontological sense is correct, of course.

However, if speaking hypothetically this actually succeeds completely, all that would be left would be an extremely convenient legal weapon, one that could put another into jail for years at a time without much preparation - get in the room, go out, swear you had sex and you did not consent, done.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

It shouldn't be "Yes means yes" it should stay with "No means NO!"

"No" or "I don't want to" or any kind of resistance to sexual advances means against consent.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

2-8% is quite a lot for a legal system claiming to require "beyond reasonable doubt" to knowingly accept.

Then you really shouldn’t look up the false accusation rate of other crimes. According to Sandra Newman of the University of Colorado: “Newman consulted data on wrongful murder convictions. “It seems to be extremely rare for anyone to be wrongfully convicted as a result of a false accusation of rape,” she says. “I was only able to find 52 cases in 25 years where a conviction was later overturned after a wrongful conviction based on false rape allegations. In the same period, there were 790 cases where people were found to be wrongfully convicted of murder.” For what it’s worth, 790 divided by 52 is 15.2, meaning that by Newman’s data, you were 15 times likelier in that 25-year period to be wrongfully convicted of murder than of rape. And, let’s keep in mind, rape allegations resulting in convictions are already vanishingly rare: Newman cites a studythat found that, of 216 assault complaints classified as false, only six led to arrest, and only two led to actual charges. (And even then, they were eventually deemed false.)”

So to be clear, the false conviction rate for murder and assault is FAR higher than the rate for rape in the US, but I don’t hear anyone crowing about murder or assault led being too liberal and open to abuse.

@Kazuaki Shimazaki

All laws are open to false reports. It is the nature of existence. Laws are fallible. Jurors make mistakes. Victims make mistakes. But as you can see, the rate is MINUSCULE. The fact that a law is not 100% correct 100% of the time is no excuse to not update it.

So if I were you, I’d be more worried about being falsely accused of homicide. It’s statistically more likely to happen.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

murder or assault laws* being too liberal

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Kazuaki Shimazaki

get in the room, go out, swear you had sex and you did not consent, done.

If you think that this is all it takes to convict someone of rape, you’re either monumentally ignorant or being willfully obtuse. I’m will to bet the latter.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@ReynardFoxToday 06:25 am JST

Let me guess:

https://www.thecut.com/article/false-rape-accusations.html

An article clearly making a drive in one direction (a substantial part of space is wasted on scenarios where the police drop cases) and counterevidence like this:

In his column, Stephens shared a misrepresented statistic, stating that false rape allegations are “at least five times as common as false accusations of other types of crime.” However, even the abstract from the very study he links to presents a more complicated figure — the authors write that a 5 percent false-report figure (which, again, is a misleading figure to begin with) is “at least five times higher than for most other offence types.” Most, but not all, as Stephens implies.

is begrudgingly acknowledged then belitted, while Newman is just quoted.

All laws are open to false reports. It is the nature of existence. Laws are fallible. Jurors make mistakes. Victims make mistakes. But as you can see, the rate is MINUSCULE. The fact that a law is not 100% correct 100% of the time is no excuse to not update it.

I agree, false reports are nature. However, it is not necessarily nature to write in formulations that make a report the only thing necessary. In the case of murder, as yet I don't see anybody seriously proposing formulations that decrease risk of false convictions. In other words, the current formulation is about the state of the art.

In rape, we have people proposing formulations that clearly increase the risk of false convictions. That's the fundamental difference and one advocates try to paper over by claiming the risk is low. Even if the risk is indeed low, why knowingly increase risk? And please don't tell me the new formulation is "harder" - you guys clearly want to move things in the direction of "easier".

@ReynardFoxToday 06:29 am JST

Instead of complaining about me, why don't you explain which part in the proposed new formulation will such a scenario be blocked?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Toasted HereticToday  12:23 am JST

There are people who were open about their sexuality, which led to taunts and snide remarks from a small but vocal minority.

Exactly, as that’s been my experience as well.

She said, simply, "why bother". Her point was that some of the male posters (not all, obvs) are so entrenched in their views that it's a waste of time and energy.

Again, exactly my experience as well. I mean, just look at this:

WobotMar. 16  09:17 pm JST

There are women who post here, but you're the only person who openly claims to be one.

Claim? Because I might be lying about my gender?

You say it's misogyny, I say it's just people disagreeing with you and you just happen to be a woman, so you just repeat it's misogyny without explaining why.

Because women experience so much sexism that they’re unable to correctly identify it and thus need men to let us know; but at the same time we have explain why something is misogynistic because it’s not obvious to the men reading that it’s misogyny, and thus we have to “prove” it’s misogyny by men’s standards, which of course are much more measured, calm, and academic:

I said it is interesting to see people talk on the internet and I should have added I meant people who aren't academics because academics are much better are talking about it calmly, and above all comprehensively. I know many women, and men, who take a much more measured and thorough approach to all these social problems than the people shouting on the internet and it is much easier to discuss things without throwing out a label at the first sign of disagreement.

Obviously men are more capable of both defining and recognising misogyny, transphobia, homophobia, and racism because they are removed from the issues and thus less emotional and more logical.

Oh wait, that should read “straight, white men”. Their bubble of privilege obviously affords them the unique ability to be objective about oppression and marginalisation.

And it’s a total mystery why women and GLBTQ don’t participate in online discussions. It’s not as if they’re actively discouraged:

To be honest I wonder why you are wasting time on a site that you seem to dislike so much.

It’s shocking, I know. I wonder why this site only seems to attract straight white men?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Err.... how do you know about all these incidents if they are not reported? Supernatural power?

That’s a very good question! I imagine the numbers were arrived at the same way the numbers you posted were.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

girl_in_tokyoToday 12:56 pm JST

Because women experience so much sexism that they’re unable to correctly identify it and thus need men to let us know; but at the same time we have explain why something is misogynistic because it’s not obvious to the men reading that it’s misogyny, and thus we have to “prove” it’s misogyny by men’s standards, which of course are much more measured, calm, and academic:

I think the problem is closer to the inverse, when women are so overindoctrinated into the feminist ideology they don't even realize when they are asking for privileges (they seem to think they are rights). When someone tells them how much of a privilege they are really asking for, they get all self-righteous and call their opponent a mysogynist. Even the possibility that they are at least Not White does not enter their imagination.

Such as now. It would perhaps be a nice thing for a man to ask a woman. I'll roll with that. However, that somehow morphs into women getting the de facto right to imprison males for 5 years or more because they suddenly decide they "hadn't consented", or hadn't repeated the expressions of consent enough times, and so on. Instead of finding alternate constructions that might satisfy doubts, all is said is "Please trust us, we don't lie (that often)."

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

don't even realize when they are asking for privileges (they seem to think they are rights). When someone tells them how much of a privilege they are really asking for, they get all self-righteous and call their opponent a mysogynist. Even the possibility that they are at least Not White does not enter their imagination.Such as now. It would perhaps be a **nice thing for a man to ask a woman**

Everyone look - this man thinks that it is a privilege, not a right, that men first consult women before trying to have sex with them.

Who was I kidding when I said this place is full of misogynists, eh? I was so very wrong - this is obviously a fine, upstanding man of the highest moral fibre. It is obvious he holds women in the highest esteem.

Thank you so much for granting women the privilege of being asked before you have sex with us. We are ever so grateful for your generosity and benevolence.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites